Eruvin 99b — the Talmud in English

Since it teaches

in the Mishna:

“And likewise in the winepress.”

It must necessarily be speaking of a winepress that is a karmelit [for example, one whose partitions are less than ten handbreadths high]. And the Mishna comes to teach us that even from a karmelit it is forbidden to drink while one is standing in a private domain or in a public domain.

For if it is speaking of a winepress that is a private domain, and it comes to teach us that it is forbidden to stand in a public domain and drink from it, we have already learned this from the first clause.

And Rava said:

this “and likewise in the winepress”

we taught with regard to tithe.

we taught.

And likewise Rav Sheshet said: “And likewise in the winepress”

with regard to tithe.

For we learned

in tractate Maaserot:

The obligation to separate teruma and tithes by Torah law applies only to an item whose work has been completed.

However, the Sages prohibited eating a fixed meal even from an item whose work has not been completed, despite the fact that it is not tevel by Torah law.

But the Sages did not prohibit an incidental eating or an incidental drinking.

It is explained in our Mishna that the wine found in the winepress [in which the grapes are trodden and pressed], before it descends into the pit, has not yet had its work completed, and it is permitted to drink from it an incidental drinking even though teruma and tithes have not been separated from it.

The definition of the drinking as “incidental drinking” depends on several things:

a. Drinking above the winepress itself, and not when one takes the wine from outside the winepress.

b. The possibility of returning the wine remaining in the cup back to the winepress.

For only if it is possible to return what remains in the cup to the winepress is this not a fixed drinking.

One may drink

wine

on the winepress,

while the wine is in it, before it descends into the pit,

whether

he diluted the wine

with

hot

water, or whether

he diluted it

with cold water

with cold water.

And he is exempt

from tithing.

Because drinking “on the winepress” is an incidental manner, and incidental drinking is exempt from tithing for an item whose work has not been completed [the completion of the wine’s work is when the wine descends from the winepress into the pit],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok obligates

one to tithe when he diluted the wine with water, whether hot or cold, because through the dilution itself it is considered a fixed drinking. And fixed drinking, without separating teruma and tithes, is forbidden even before the completion of the work.

And the Sages say: With hot water he is obligated.

If he diluted the wine with hot water, he is obligated to tithe even when he drinks on the winepress, since, because he cannot return the diluted wine that remains into the winepress, because the hot water will spoil the wine in the winepress, his intention is to drink all that he diluted, and thereby his drinking has become a fixed drinking.

And with cold water,

if he diluted the wine with cold water,

he is exempt

from tithing,

because he returns the remainder

of the diluted wine back into the winepress after he has drunk a little. Therefore, it is an incidental drinking.

And our Mishna follows Rabbi Meir, that in every case in which he drinks on the winepress, it is an incidental drinking.

And the Mishna says that “and likewise in the winepress” means that a person may not stand outside the winepress, bend his body into the winepress, and drink inside the winepress without tithing, lest he take the wine outside the winepress and drink. For then it is a fixed drinking, which is subject to tithing. Unless he inserts his head and most of his body into the winepress.

Mishna:

A person may catch,

who is standing in a public domain, rainwater issuing

from the gutter,

from a drainpipe placed along the wall, near the roof, where the rainwater flows in the gutter and descends below, and he catches the water from there,

below ten handbreadths

inside the public domain.

And specifically, catching the water in the air is permitted.

But “joining,” meaning placing his mouth or a vessel against the gutter, is forbidden, for the reason explained in the Gemara.

And

if

from the pipe,

which projects three handbreadths beyond the roof,

in any event

he

may drink!

For it is permitted for him even to place the vessel against the pipe and receive the water from it. And this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And we infer:

A person may catch

water from the gutter;

not.

But he may join

his mouth or a vessel to the gutter

not!

What is the reason?

Rav Nahman said: Here we are dealing with a gutter

that is located

less than three

handbreadths

near the roof.

For anything less than three

handbreadths

near the roof is

considered like the roof, by the law of lavud. And when he places his mouth or the vessel against the gutter, he is as though placing it against the roof, and he is as though taking it from the roof, which is a private domain,

to the public domain. But a pipe, since it is three handbreadths distant from the roof, is not considered as though he is joining it to the roof. Therefore, it is permitted even to join it.

A beraita also taught this,

that it is forbidden to join [a vessel] near a roof less than three handbreadths [from it]:

A person stands in a private domain,

such as on his roof,

and raises his hand above ten handbreadths

toward his fellow’s roof,

to less than three

handbreadths

near the roof

in question.

And he catches

from the air the rainwater that descends from there.

Provided that he does not join,

that he does not place his mouth or a vessel against the wall at a height of less than three handbreadths near the roof. Since that place is considered like the roof, he is as though taking from his fellow’s domain into his own domain without an eruv of courtyards.

Another beraita taught: He may not stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, to less than three handbreadths near the roof, and join [the vessel]. But he may catch and drink.

We learned in the Mishna: He may catch

from the pipe in any event and drink.

The tanna taught: If there is in the pipe

a width of

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths,

it is forbidden

to join [a vessel] to it,

because

then the pipe itself is a karmelit [and not a private domain, since the Mishna is speaking when the mouth of the pipe is below ten handbreadths].

And when he joins [a vessel] to it,

he is as one who takes from a domain

of a karmelit

to a domain

of the public.

And only when it does not contain four by four [handbreadths] is it permitted to join [a vessel] to it, since then it is a place exempt.

Mishna:

A pit

of water located

in a public domain,

and the pit itself is a private domain, since its depth is ten handbreadths,

and

around it

its embankment is ten handbreadths high.

There is

a window above it,

located in the wall of the house adjacent to the pit, and

one may draw water from it on Shabbat,

water from the pit into the house, through the window.

For the window and the pit are both private domains.

And likewise,

a refuse heap

located

in a public domain,

which is

ten handbreadths high,

through

the window above it

one pours water into it on Shabbat

through the window, since the refuse heap too is a private domain.

Gemara:

And we raise the difficulty:

With what are we dealing?

If you say it is adjacent,

that the pit is adjacent to the wall of the house, within four handbreadths—

If so,

why do I need

that around it there be

an embankment

of a height of

ten

handbreadths?

For the pit itself, since it is ten deep, is a private domain.

And since the area between it and the window is less than four handbreadths, it is a place exempt. And is there a prohibition to carry from one private domain to another private domain through a place exempt?

And we answer:

Rav Huna said: Here, with what are we dealing? With [a pit] distanced four

handbreadths from the wall. The embankment of the pit is four handbreadths distant from the wall, and between it and the wall there is an area that is a public domain.

And

therefore,

the reason is that there is an embankment of ten.

For then, when he transfers the bucket from the pit, which is a private domain, to the window, which is also a private domain, he transfers it through a place exempt.

For air above ten handbreadths in a public domain [if the surface is not four [handbreadths] wide] is a place exempt.

If there is no embankment of ten—

he carries from

the pit, which is

a private domain, to

the window, which is

a private domain, through

the air of

the public domain, which is forbidden [and according to most of the early authorities, its prohibition is by Torah law].

which is prohibited. According to most of the early authorities, this prohibition is by Torah law.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: You may even say

the Mishna is

adjacent,

the embankment of the pit being within four handbreadths of the wall.

And even if the embankment is not ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to draw water from the pit to the window. And the wording of the Mishna is not difficult.

For the statement that it teaches, “and its embankment is ten high,” does not speak of the embankment itself being ten high.

Rather, the depth of the pit together with the height of the embankment combines to make ten handbreadths.

And

this comes to teach us: that the pit and its embankment

combine to make ten,

to make the inside of the pit a private domain.

Therefore, it is permitted to carry from the pit to the window. For both of them are private domains, and the place between them is a place exempt.

We learned in the Mishna:

A refuse heap in a public domain,

ten handbreadths high—through the window above it, one pours water into it on Shabbat.

And we raise the difficulty:

And

when

we are not concerned lest it be removed,

and they clear away the

refuse heap,

so that its height will remain less than ten handbreadths and it will cease to be a private domain,

and, out of habit, they will not be careful and will continue pouring there from the window, and it will turn out that he is taking from a private domain to a karmelit, or to a public domain?

But

he said:

Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzhak said: There was an incident involving one alleyway,

one end of which was closed, while its other end was properly arranged, with a side-post and a cross-beam.

And on its two sides:

One side ended at the sea,

there being a sea on one side, and the shore of the sea was ten handbreadths deep and became a partition for the alleyway.

And one side ended at a refuse heap,

the partition of the alleyway on the other side being a refuse heap ten [handbreadths high] [and the houses and courtyards opened onto the alleyway through its middle wall].

And the matter came before Rabbi, and he did not say concerning it either a prohibition

to carry in it

or a permission.

He did not state a permission, because we are concerned lest the refuse heap be removed,

the

refuse heap, and

lest

the sea cast up silt,

so that sand would accumulate on the seashore up to the height of the alleyway and the partition there would be nullified.

He did not state a prohibition, because

even now

the partitions remain.

Yet our Mishna implies that we are not concerned lest the refuse heap be removed.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This

of Rabbi is concerning a refuse heap

belonging to an individual,

where there is concern lest he decide to clear it away.

This

of the Mishna is concerning a refuse heap

belonging to the public,

which is never destined to be cleared away, and there is no concern lest in the future its height become less than ten handbreadths.

Mishna:

A tree

standing in the public domain

whose branches spread over the ground,

whose branches spread out and descend around it on all sides—

if its foliage is not three handbreadths high above the ground,

so that the ends of the branches reach to less than three handbreadths near the ground—

one may carry beneath it.

We apply lavud, and the ends of the branches are found to be as though they reach the ground. And since the height of the branches at the place where they join the tree is at least ten handbreadths, there are here partitions of ten handbreadths.

If its roots are three handbreadths high above the ground,

so that the roots have emerged on the surface of the ground at a height of three handbreadths—

one may not sit on them.

For the law of these roots is like that of a tree. And the Sages prohibited using a tree on Shabbat, as a decree lest one come to detach a branch from it.

But if they are not three handbreadths high, they are like the ground, and it is permitted to sit on them.

Gemara:

It was explained above, in the second chapter, that an area enclosed by partitions which is not designated for dwelling, but rather for a storeroom and the like, may be used for carrying only if it is less than a beit seah. But if it is larger than this, it is forbidden by rabbinic law to carry an object four cubits in it.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: One may not carry in it,

beneath the tree whose foliage reaches down to less than three handbreadths, if there was there

more than a beit seah.

And this is so even if he planted the tree initially in order to shelter beneath its shade.

What is the reason?

For is this place not considered enclosed for dwelling, so that even if it is very large it is permitted to carry in it?